This is the mail archive of the
java-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
[Bug libgcj/28546] [4.2 Regression] ./java/lang/Thread.h:31: error: using typedef-name '_Jv_Thread_t' after 'class'
- From: "toa at pop dot agri dot ch" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: java-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 30 Jul 2006 21:06:25 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libgcj/28546] [4.2 Regression] ./java/lang/Thread.h:31: error: using typedef-name '_Jv_Thread_t' after 'class'
- References: <bug-28546-276@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #3 from toa at pop dot agri dot ch 2006-07-30 21:06 -------
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ./java/lang/Thread.h:31:
error: using typedef-name '_Jv_Thread_t' after 'class'
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
> ------- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-07-30 20:51 -------
> Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ./java/lang/Thread.h:31: error: using
> typedef-name '_Jv_Thread_t' after 'class'
>
>> This is in include/no-threads.h.
>
> Ah, that's correct since I see I specified '--enable-threads=single'.
> I was going to work further on the _REENTRANT problem but lost track
> of this fact.
>
> In any event, we didn't used to hit this problem. The forward
> declaration in Makefile.am seems like a hack.
>
>> So, we either have a posix-thread detection issue on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00 or
>> posix threads are not supported here.
>>
>> Just for the record, hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 does work.
>
> Probably not if configured with '--enable-threads=single'. This is
> the default on hpux11. POSIX threads are always available, so possibly
> we should just force posix threads. On the otherhand, I'm still
> thinking that I would like '--enable-threads=single' to work for hpux10.
Right and right, and I think it is platform independent. If one uses
--enable-threads=single on any platform we will hit this compilation
problem.
So, the right way to solve this is to attack the include/no-threads.h place.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28546